Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 15:23:34 EDT

In a message dated 9/21/2001 11:15:59 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u}
> > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du 
makau}?
> 
> Why that presumption?  I am not sure. 
> It's the natural extension of this abuse of notation: using 
> 

But {ce'u} is not any function at all, and certainly not the identity 
function. It is just a bound variable of a certain type, one that creates 
functions to types of objects out of those types of objects by putting in the 
holes.

<> <Or will you insist on using 
> {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does 
> it depend on {le} to turn it into one?>
> Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self 
identical and 
> that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out. 

But the value of the function will be different for each!
How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case?
In both cases there is one function wich gives different values
for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in 
{le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".>

Right you are, they do differ in le du be ce'u. I got off on the fact that 
this is a pretty pointless one, since, if we know they differ at all, they 
differ in this way, so this is not very informative. But it is true. Thanks 
for reminding me.

<> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u} 
> creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to 
whatever the 
> matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into as 
a sumti. 

Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why 
can't ce'u stand for the identity function?>

The matrix here is a proposition, so {ce'u} in it creates a property. To be 
sure, as you just pointed out, one of the arguments to this property that 
yields a truth is the identity function. So, in that sense (application of 
function to argument) I suppose {ce'u} can stand for the identity function, 
along with several other functions, including {le du'u makau du ce'u}. I 
don't see the thread of this argument at the moment, though, since that fact 
does not fit in with where I thought you were going or where you need to be 
going to make some sort of case here against {ce'u} in sentences or sumti.

<I don't think this is only about {djuno}. Is there any predicate
at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}
indifferently? >

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised ({te tavla} looks like a case at 
first glance). Again, what is the point here? I thought your concern was 
about two abstractions, {le broda be ce'u} (a function to individuals) and 
{le du'u makau broda} (a set of propositions). Why point to a concretum 
instead, {le broda}? It seems irrelevant.

<You really don't see any parallel between the {le broda}:
{le du'u makau broda} pair and the {le broda be ce'u}:{le du'u 
makau broda ce'u} one?

Sure, I see a parallel; the first are (very loosely) instances of the second, 
with the {ce'u} applied to the same argument ({zo'e}, I suppose). So? The 
fact remains that one of the first is a concretum, the other an abstractum, 
while both of the second pair are abstracts -- and it is the role of 
abstracts that I claim allows them to function in the same environment. So 
the problems (if there are any) with a concretum and an abstract in the same 
place have no bearing on the issue.

Yoou seem to be regularly confusing a function with its values and that is 
likely to lead to a (n even more) serious mass of misunderstandings -- which 
it seems to have done.